How about a linky for the telescope?

@@doggedout Seconded.

ditto. It sounds amazing.

Please link the scope.

@@doggedout I came for this too!

r77xxl I am glad someone noticed!

They are on call

I'm not sure if to be chuffed means he's happy about them or mad about them. :)

Buy any celestron astro-fi smart telescope and stick any old dslr onto it. One button single exposures will give you better results than this. Costs 700 bucks, is just as intuitive and also works with an app for setting goto targets. And you can use it for actual visual observation. Honestly, the criticism of that scope is absolutely justified. It's not even worth half it's price.

offPlanet I guess I should also buy their Starsense Autoalign gadget to do the star recognition, and hook that up too with its separate controller, and make sure it is aligned properly with the main scope. And I should buy and install a polar wedge, so I can take longer exposures, because my DSLR won’t have the ability to derotate images as it intelligently coadds short exposures on the fly. And polar align the telescope every time I want to take a picture. And repeat the process every time I have to shift the telescope to exploit the very limited sky available from my patio (which, in itself, would be a bit tricky as the pole is obscured from quite a lot of the patio). And I still wouldn’t be capturing the data necessary to participate in the occultation campaigns. And the DSLR wouldn’t be continuously sending its building image to my phone so that I could decide when to stop and move on to a new object from the warmth of my kitchen. And the whole thing would sit indefinitely in my shed. On the whole, I think I’ll stick with enjoying straight out of the box pretty much every night.

Michael Merrifield +1 The scope that doesn't get used has no value at all. It's like all cars should be a Caterham kit.

Thank You Sir . Thank You Professor Michael Merrifield . All Brilliant Work Sir .

Airpods FTW

I had the same thought! it's leagues better than Brady's in this video. Is it really just the Airpods??

Horses for courses! ...,and know your limitations.

Karl Oestreich and you know this because...?

@@cynomyS Karl is correct. Most major observatories the astronomer isn't even in the same room as the telescope. It's all computer operated now a days.

Most of them don't even LOOK through telescopes anymore.

@@rtpoe That's very true.

its only your monitor ( _trolling_ )

@Hose2wAcKiEr yeah. it was fairly distracting tho. if done in the future, i hope the intensity is reduced

It's terrible :-(

@Hose2wAcKiEr I think it was done by accident for the transitions.

I hated it.

Maybe more like a composer playing piano for the first time.

Paying the price for a grand piano for a 25-key Casio is more like it

@@off_Planet Are you referring to TF using this telescope as an excuse to brag about his kit? The prof actually payed because he wanted the Casio. Ease of use > peak performance.

This is all fake ur so gullible. It’s flat earth and moon! Moon doesn’t twist so only seeing one side. Same with earth

@@n1k32h no, Moon doesn't twist. Celestial bodies don't tend to twist. The Moon is tidally locked. It does actually rotate quite a bit over a long time, you're not seeing the same face forever. Also, Mercury is also tidally locked to the Sun. So we know how tidally locked bodies behave. Also, the laws of physics simply doesn't allow for a flat world without extreme rotation that would break it apart. So yeah, you probably live in your own universe where nothing makes sense.

Agreed. I’m sure it wouldn’t work for me.

@@sixtysymbols Could we please get a link to this telescope? I really want one now!

@@sixtysymbols Link to telescope or at least description please?

TheNikoado it’s very expensive for what you get according to Tunderf00t

@@Life_42 I think it is this one: search for unistellaroptics

Power of advertisement and brand value.

Cheers Alan.

Thanks!

That's right-- capital sigma and lowercase sigma. Always a nice moment to discover something like that, kinda of like "first light!" :)

εὖ γε!

I read that as "geek alphabet" and started to get offended, for some reason.

@@Ucranianooo *facts don't care about your feelings!!* (jk)

@@Ucranianooo Why? You're actually spot on.

The unistellar is not cheap in price by any stretch. Its incredibly expensive for the hardware you get.

For $100 less you can get the Meade LX90 ACF™ TELESCOPE - 12" F/10, with another $60 savings since the Meade has free shipping... Basically, if you had been a Super Early Bird, you're still being ripped-off paying $1,000 (plus shipping). The kickstarter prices get worse and worse for Early Bird, than regular backers; until the insane $3,000 plus $60 shipping price now... But for $2,900 with free shipping, you can get the Meade LX90 ACF™ TELESCOPE - 12" F/10... Just look up that 12 inch monster compared to the 4.5 inch trash (it's trash because it costs $3,000).

@@DeepPastry and before anybody says that 4.5 is not that much smaller than 12, the "light collection power" is proportional to the square of radius, so the 12" one is actually over 7 times better

@@Disnamesucksass I wasn't referring to this one, I'm referring to his statement about never having owned one before this.

The scope Mike has isn't exactly cheap, and is actually very expensive for the resolving power it provides. Basically you can get more telescope for less money, but it's also not so user friendly. The thing that upsets me is that the Nottingham Physics department has a pretty nice telescope in a dome on the building's roof, and it's available for any staff and students to use provided they've taken a fairly brief training session. It's a much, much nicer telescope than the one Mike's talking about in this video.

Just doing my best with limited skills. Always learning and aspiring to be a better editor and a better man.

Simpler is usually better - when in doubt, do nothing.

@@sixtysymbols Yes it does get quite annoying, try not to use it next time. Otherwise the video was spot on, kept my interest the whole way :D

​@@sixtysymbols Aren't we all. You've been making videos for years, I'd say your skills are far better than mine!

@@Ricardo-bw2yn Your loss...

Same, but at least it's clear to see we're all happy haha

It's really not that much work, though. Even with a mid-tier AP rig, you're all set up in 10 minutes for visual, 15 for AP. And even with a beginner rig you will get far superior images.

Exactly!

Rob Fenwitch having been using the internet most of my life, I can confirm that nothing surprises me anymore.

Ha ha it's not plastering its artexing. From the 80,s! It's a UK thing lol .

It's the evscope, and it ain't worth the $3000 dollar price tag they're asking lol. Just watch Thunderf00t's video about this scope and you will learn that you can get better results with less money.

Since when is Thudf00t an astronomy channel?

@@Markle2k Since he has been doing astronomy for years, and probably decades.

@@GoldSrc_ He’s an organic chemist by training and by profession. Phil has Nobel Syndrome without the Nobel to show for it. I believe he has said that he owns a telescope, but that doesn’t make him even an amateur astronomer by comparison with those who actually do astronomy.

@@Markle2k Phil is a smart guy but likes to come across as a know it all. He loves to bash everything.

@@Tommyr you call it bashing. Better description is, oh I don't know, busting.

Le Plum Agreed! I want one, where can I get it!

There simply is no justification for buying a 4.5" refractor with a cheap goto mount on a cheap, wobbly tripod for 3000 bucks, don't do it.

Unistellar.

Just spend one third or a quarter of the price for a goto scope

It's the evscope, but please don't waste your money on it, 3000 dollars ain't worth it lol. Watch Thunderf00t's video about it.

unistella maybe. That's what is written on the pictures it has taken.

It's the rip-off 9000... For $100 less plus free shipping (another savings of $60), get the Meade LX90 ACF™ TELESCOPE - 12" F/10... Just look at that Meade, and say to yourself, for $100 less I can get the Meade.

It's called the eVscope

3 grand for this trash! for that price, you can buy a decent apo refractor with an entry level eq mount.

EVscope. It's a hugely overpriced ripoff. Average scope with an average camera built-in, fancy marketing and they charge 10x the price of the parts.

As I understand it's the wavelength of the source star plus atmospheric interference...so it can vary even viewing the same star

It's a plane

It’s Santa doing some practice runs. He and his reindeer have to stay in shape!

Samuel Millott Thanks

Maybe interference patterns from your eyelashes.

Len Arends maybe at the initial moment of break up. I think with so many different pieces the light just gets scattered a lot more. As a single piece the light hitting it is probably a lot more focused. Also, by breaking up, it. Relates not just a bunch of big pieces, but a big amount of a dust halo, which would absorb quite a bit a of light and scatter even more of it. Just a guess, though

vima78 simple enough to test though by putting something over it or pointing it at a tree

It would be downloading nicer images

That'd be a clever trick! :P

You can see through it by yourself

Are you serious? I hope not.

not from a garden in Nottingham city centre.. Perhaps you could travel to before streetlights were a thing..

Naked eye through a telescope eyepiece as opposed to a camera through a telescope. Film and digital camera sensors can pick up much fainter objects than the human eye.

Darren Marsh - I’m pretty sure Messier did not use a telescope to find his objects. He may have used one to study them further.

@@quickstart-M51 He was looking for comets with a telescope so he made a catalogue of not comets (as seen through a telescope).

He absolutely used multiple telescopes over the years he was cataloguing. Three dozen give or take are visible to the naked eye from very dark sites, and about that many more can be spotted in binoculars. The rest require a telescope.

Especially with an alt az

I have a different, even smaller one that the professor has, Vespara telescope, and it is really a 10 minute job to carry it outside, turn it on, and imaging a nebula or galaxy. I don't think I would be as enthusiastic about astrophotgraphy as I am now, it I had to carry a big scope out, setup, and futz around with for 30 minutes, and then break it down and carry it in when done.

It's called the evscope by Unistellar. $3,000.

Don't.

I think the Milky Way is 1000-2000 light years thick, something like that. No quite pancake thin but almost :-)

Not much. It has a fairly short focal length (which is key for small, bright objects like planets) and no option to insert a barlow lens (magnification lens) since the eyepiece isn't an eyepiece at all but a tiny screen.

Star-viewing telescopes and planet-viewing telescopes have very different requirements.

@@Tfin not really. This partucular scope is simply not appropriate because you cant change eyepieces to gain more magnification (zoom) like every other telescope that isnt a toy.